Larian Studios Forums Baldur's Gate III Baldur's Gate III - Suggestions & Feedback Fix Romances!

I am real fucked up by this game. I play since ea and backadays the romances worked as intendet. I am so fucked up by this digusting horny camp. I am in a romance with Shadowheart and i am being harrassed by wyll and gale all the time. I had to say to both that i am not interested. Now Gale talked to me in the shadowcursed land about his problem in the medow and it was this romantic style scene again. Why? I never flirted with them and it should not be triggered only by aproval. Its the third patch and still i am bothered with this shit.
Everywhere i must read how brilliant this game is but there are so much bad designed things.
Fix it! It kills the whole immersion.

On my first playthrough Gale took a very long time to romance properly, but I'm hearing now there are instances where people have a high affinity with him, and he'll say things as though you're practically enemies. And in my experience, characters like Shadowheart come on to me way too strongly, way too quickly. There's a lot of the companions throwing themselves at you inappropriately.

I'm to the point where I just send Gale to blow himself up in the underdark.

Wyll's suddenly asking me to dance scene was crazy. What the heck was he thinking?

Dude, no, just no. What gave you the impression I would want to dance with you?

Oh my god. All of them are trying to get up on me. My first playthru…


Dating in Faerun is hard.

Some companions really should hook up with each other if you don't initiate anything (Wyll and Karlach, Astarion and Minthara maybe?)

Some of them do. These companions need Serotonin.

I don't think the game intend to "immerse" you with the world. Not with the amount of meta information currently given to you.

The only suggestion I can give is: Say no.

Wyll and Gale will approach you if you are goody two shoes, but once they rejected, they will not approach you.

They're adults, they can handle the "no" - and you can still progress with their quest.

Some thoughts... So first off, the companions don't have a will of their own, so if they suddenly come up with the "lets shag a bit dialogue options" it is because in some previous dialogue you initiated the romance, intentionally or not.

Which directly leads to the first problem I see. Most of the time you have absolutely no idea what the companions still consider normal dialogue and what they consider sexual interest in themselves. You can guess, but just maybe Larian should mark these options.

Second problem I see is, the approval needed for initiating a romance is way to low. Basically a few friendly words and they want to play all kinds of funny games with my poor little paladin. Virtue be gone.

Third problem, mixing general approval with romance is a bad idea. If you sympathize with your companions, show genuine interest in them, do their quests, be supportive and so on, that should not lead to romance. The game however only knows romance, so even if you are on "we are just good friend" terms with all of them, their story relevant cut scenes and camp dialogues will still be sexually charged. I'd really like to hug my despairing wizard, I hug my real world friends all the time. There is no harm in a little dance, I dance with my female friends literally at every party... In other words, the game lacks nuance.

Last problem, that stuff is genuinely bad designed. The romances and the characters lack depths and complexity. Nobody has any personal preference, camp is downright horny land and everything that sees you in that game, including mind flayers, demons and a horny bear that turns into an oversized druid from time to time, wants to play butt games five minutes after seeing you.

One of the big problems is that the programmers don't account for sexual preference in straight male culture. If a male friend hits on you, it is over big time. Bridge burnt. Mandatory distance. Done. Kaput.

Not to mention personal distance. MC and Gale sit ridiculously close given all the space available.

Instead they've got a matrix where X companion will approach MC under Y conditions. Sexual preference not implemented.

Back in release, Gale wouldn't take no for an answer and had to be told twice. Bad timing of Wyll or Halsin and it'd seem like the all the men of the Realms were coming for you. Uncomfortable/goofy-funny/unimmersive, take your pick. Doing a second run now and my MC simply interacts less with male companions, roundabout way to solve the problem + IC for a stoic type.

Astarion and Lae'zel,since they do start a thing during the party, if you don't romance any of them.

Tbh, I don't really care much about it anymore. The only companion, I have a problem with is Halsin, since his pickup lines are so incredibly creepy. And even after you said No, he tries it via your romance partner.
The rest is ok, imo. If you say no to Gale, you get a really nice friendship path.

To be honest, it's almost a little too reminiscent of (a much younger) real life for me. Here you are, trying to be nice to people because you're a socially awkward and doesn't quite understand all those subtle hints that people use. And suddenly you have to break som guy's heart and friend-zone them because apparently being nice equals love and now you're alone and without friends again. At least in BG3, the companions remain friends afterwards.

Would really like it if there was some sort of marker to point out what dialogue options are consider romantic.

That seems to pretty much be any option that isn't "Leave" half the time. The other half it's the options for advancing their personal quest.

It does feel that companions only really have three subjects of conversation.. their backstory, their personal quest and romance.. and often they overlap.

What really irks me about the romance in this game (other than it hangs over every dialog option like a dark cloud.. or that once you start a romance with someone and it's clearly camp gossip - going by Astarions comments to me after the first time I slept with Lae'zel - no-one else in the camp respects it and treats you like you're still "single" and "available") is that you can leave a character in camp the entire time and ignore them (I'm looking at you Wyll) and they still want to romance you, taking them out with you on adventures (to do more than just advance their personal quest) should pretty much be a requirement for romance (especially for characters that need to be doing something - e.g. Lae'zel, being left stuck in camp should annoy the heck out of her especially).

I'd like to join in on this discussion. As much as I like the characters and writing of this game, all the companions are way too horny, which makes relationships feel forced. In the past, I've played games where romancing was an option. For instance, some characters may have their preferences, as in, one character may only want to romance a male player while another prefers females. Also, some games manage to have variety in characters' motivations. Some would look for sex only while others would want to get into emotions. This variety made the characters believable.

In contrast to this, in BG3 each single character offers themselves to Tav, even if he/she is already involved. Even friggin Mizora approached me and said: "Hey, let's bang, ok?" out of the blue.

So yeah, relationships are cool, but what currently happens in BG3 is over the line, I think. I want to be able to watch Wyll dance without having it be a romantic thing, just as a bro. I also want to be able to try out magic with Gale without hinting and wanting to be with him.

Finally, they must have their preferences. It's just not statistically possible that every single person in the world is bisexual.

This is a really odd thing to insinuate. First, straight male culture is riddled with "bros" flirting, albeit jokingly. But I don't think an innocent pass from a queer or questioning male friend would devastate the average straight male as you imply. Maybe in middle school. Are you... a child? Please don't answer. I agree that the romance setup as it is in the game is a mess, but this post's take on it was... questionable to say the least.

I disagree, and I don't think it's necessary to belittle someone by calling them a child for expressing their culture in broad terms.

For what it's worth, there's quite a bit of truth in what the poster mentioned. I have zero interest in starting a male/male relationship in the game, and it makes me not want to interact with the male companions at all. Solely because I know at some point they're going to start coming on to me. Wyll's dancing scene was unbelievably out of touch with my character.

I understand that you may not like my opinion on the matter. I even understand that you may not like me because of my opinion. All of that is fine. But there are a lot of "me's" out there, and it would be nice if Larian could provide a way to avoid triggering those scenes.

1. An option in settings to turn on particular romance options, perhaps.
2. Obvious [start romance] triggers in the conversation, maybe.

For what it's worth, I've always thought the "playersexual" approach was a terrible idea. It completely strips all of the NPCs of any real sexual identity. it's not at all realistic and thus it detracts from the artistry of the whole.

The reason for me saying that was because homophobia is discriminatory, obviously, and more commonly the opinion of a younger more ignorant person, aka a child, not an acceptable aspect of culture at least not here I assume and hope...
No need to paint out like it was a baseless insult just because you might agree with such sentiments.

I appreciate your intent to focus on the point of the matter which is how it reflects player experience and gameplay matters, though. Personally, I find it unneededly and exceedingly limiting when a game takes the Dragon Age approach and assigns cemented sexual preferences to romanceable characters. What makes more sense is providing the options mentioned to properly open up or turn down the paths that the player is or isn't interested in pursuing in those regards.

First of all a disclaimer. I don't have any problems with gay people whatsoever. I know I shouldn't even need to point that out, but since you're obviously very sensitive I do.

But there seems to be a point you're missing in the original post. It wasn't calling for the eradication of gays or saying they're somehow inferior. I took it as stating a simple fact, not an opinion, in as a simple a way as possible, and to me it came off as quite neutral. I'm going to say the same thing in a more complicated way.

People in the real world can read subtle cues. You take your average straight male, and odds are they're not being hit on by gay people and have never been, even if said gay people happened to be their friends. Why? Because people respect each other's sexuality. It is hardcoded in our biology. You can't make someone straight in to anything but what they are. You can't and nor should you. People who are more open about things aren't straight.

So, the problem here is that straight men in the real world don't give off signals that they're gay, and if they were being hit on by gays all the time even when they don't give off those signals, it will make them uncomfortable, because they are not gays. Now if you have the same thing happening to them in a fictional setting, they're not going to like it either. It means their characters either aren't in their control i.e. they're giving off signals that the player doesn't want them to give OR the fictional characters around them cross boundaries in ways that isn't acceptable. You too could take a time to respect those boundaries instead of calling people children when they only act according to their biology.

Obviously some people have more lax boundaries and aren't as easily uncomfortable, but I assure you, many straight males are and there is nothing that will change a biological imperative like that. There is genuine homophobia in the world, but not wanting to be hit on by other guys isn't enough to fit the bill.

I play female characters and to be honest it'd be weird having all the women hit on my character all the time, but I suppose if every man in the camp wants to sleep with her (while being somewhat more realistic) it is also uncomfortable. Sounds to me like the companions in BG3 are some kind of sexual harassers. It's not easy to end up in a relationship and I see no reason why that should be any different in a fantasy setting, it makes the romances more appealing if you have to work on them.

Dragon Age: Inquisition did it the best, there was no way to get a gay man in bed if you were a woman, but at least you could be a friend with him and you could be just a friend with a lesbian too, without them trying to approach you sexually. I, and knowing something about human biology, vast majority of the players appreciated it being that way. Why would anyone want to force a gay man in bed with a woman? Or should everyone be bisexuals?

'Playersexuality' is a some kind of godhood fantasy where everyone in the world wants you. Most players arent't that narcissistic (narcissism is somewhat rare). Players, I assume, want a simulation of a realistic relationship,whether you're gay or straight, and part of that which comes with it, is being rejected by people who don't share your biological desires, not being harassed by them. It'd be much, much better, not to mention realistic, if Larian would fix the companions in a way that if they happen to have no preferences, as rare as that is, at least they'd respect the fact that most people do have them.

I bet you're tolerant of gays and respect their preferences, how about you do the same with straight people too without insulting them? Every insult here is unnecessary. People just want to enjoy the game and have a right to criticize things that they don't like about it. If someone is being forced to avoid his male party members only because they just want to be friends with them, then there's something very wrong with the game and it needs fixing.

I'd say "playersexual" is the best choice they've made. I'd hate to be locked out of a romance just because someone at Larian went and decided that the companion that I like isn't into the character I've created. Making everyone available is inclusive and wonderful in my opinion. However, I still think some things should have been done better. First and foremost, I feel like the player should be the one to initiate the romance, not the companions. Second of all, I think it should be clear what dialogue options actually constitutes at romantic. As of now, it's a little too easy to be romantic with a companion. And certain scenes shouldn't be romanced locked either. I mean, Gale's just asking to teach you some magic, what's romantic about that? It would have been better if that was a friendly option, and then while magic-weaving, there was a clear "hit on Gale" option one would choose to actually initiate the romance.

Another option would simply be to have the player chose sexual orientation upon character creation. That way only companions that match would be available for romance, and all dialogue options with un-matched companions would always be seen as friend-only.

Because even if I do like the "playersexuality", I do recognize the odd scenario of having every single companion hit on you at some point. That's just not how things would work out and it's weird. Reminds me a little too much of all those cringy romance-aligned books/movies where the main character always have every other person swooning for them and they have to make the hard choice of choosing one of them to romance. No one really likes those, right?

I'm certain this would give people the best possible experience, because it would mean other characters could see/sense/whatever (through subtle cues that can't really be integrated in to a game) what kind of people you are and like, and they wouldn't try to hit on you if they knew you're not interested in their sex.

I still preferred Dragon Age: Inquistion, because of how awkward the romances could be, when people (both the main character and their potential love interests) weren't yet quite sure of where they stood in relation to each other. If you didn't, for some reason, cue on that Dorian was gay at least you could test his conviction and fail. I think friendship and just being friends used to be better represented in games.

I get what you mean by 'playersexuality' being the best option. You're options in a game are very limited simply because there is only so much time the writers have to write a romance. Better to have more than one option (or none as gnomes, halflings and dwarves found out in BG2, despite it having some of the best romances otherwise). 'Playersexuality' isn't a problem unless it means that every damn person wants you. If everyone wants you then it puts in to question whether they really want only you to begin with or if they're the kind of people who would want anyone else too under different circumstances. No one's that special, even if you're a damn model or a millionaire, or both, not everyone is going to want you.

If there are limits to wants, then when two people match, it's what special is truly about, quality not quantity.

In response to Malaconia, I registered an account to add to this discussion.


I agree with this sentiment. It's very jarring when I am playing my character whom I clearly have in mind as being a straight male and all of a sudden am constantly being hit on and pursued by the male characters with whom I had a normal male friendship. It just doesn't feel normal. I don't think the vast majority of gay men would go after a male friend who is clearly straight and hasn't shown any interest in them.

At the same time, players shouldn't be locked out of pursuing their ideal love interest simply because of the gender they chose for their character. Another issue is the crazy amount of horniness/ease at which characters want to have sex with the player. I think the best workaround for these two issues would be, in short:

- Allow all companions to be romanced by the player given high enough approval and player initiation
- Make romance a separate path to go on with a companion that diverges from a standard friendship path, and make it initiated by the player

To extrapolate, there should be the "friendship path", which the game defaults to upon reaching high approval with a companion. Only when the player initiates the "relationship path" through specific, clearly stated/worded dialogue choices should the romance/flirting scenes begin to happen. This would make it so the player can select those characters whom they would be attracted to, rather than just have them choose through every character throwing themselves at the player, which feels totally unnatural. In this way, varying player sexuality could be addressed in a more natural way while still allowing for a wide array of choices.

Choosing to pursue a relationship in the game should also be more of a goal and a buildup; it should not be some easy task of simply asking the companion "do you want to have sex?" - especially given that the companion is normally the one initiating this in BG3. Romance should feel like a task of first understanding the character, learning about them, impressing them/growing closer to them, and then finally realizing love. You know, akin to real life romance, hahaha. There should be bumps in the road, decisions to make involving the companion, and then finally a moment where you two find feelings for one another/confess your building feelings.

Shadowheart comes to mind as being a romance done (kind of?) well. While at present, things progress very quickly in the first part of act 1, the relationship with Shadowheart then slows down, and the player character and Shadowheart grow together and learn things about her during act 2, only for her to finally come to want a relationship with the PC at the end of act 2. I don't think any other character is like that; they all want to have sex with/start a relationship with the PC right off the bat if given the chance. Granted, Shadowheart will kiss you and clearly be attracted to you quite early on, but her case is still the best out of the cast. Of course the moment act 3 begins, things then jump off a cliff with Shadowheart and the rest of the cast turning into lifeless mannequins with one or two notable lines of dialogue per hour, but still, the buildup is something that feels like a journey and an achievement.

To digress a bit, I think the companion system in this game has massive potential. There could be a wide array of non-romantic scenes which happen with your companions as you journey along. These could be arguments/discussions between the party on what is going on, scenes in which you connect with companions/hang out (varying depending upon where you are and what you've done), and overall flavor to add to the feeling that you are in a party of fresh acquaintances with wildly varying personalities and motivations who are embarking on a perilous journey together. An example that comes to mind is the short fight between Shadowheart and Lae'zel. It gives the characters some personality and makes the group feel like just that: a group of individuals with varying motivations and personalities. Sadly, scenes like that are few and far between, but I don't think they would be hard to add in whatsoever.

It would also add to replayability as the scenes you would be seeing wouldn't be the same 2-3 scenes on repeat every single playthrough. All this not mentioning that, as of now, companion scenes inevitably are just lead-ups to romance if not romance scenes themselves.

The point to playing this game in singleplayer is the companions. When the story is over, the biggest impression left on a player will be those of their story with their companions. Perhaps I am alone in this opinion, but I feel that the companions, even in the state they are in now, add tremendously to the game experience. I felt the same about Divinity 2, a game where I still will go back and listen to character musical themes and think about their personalities and their stories just because I loved their characters so much.

Having the companions' relationship with the player character progress so quickly only to suddenly come to a standstill takes away from the experience with them and diminishes the feeling of remembering your journey alongside them. In short, it makes them feel robotic when the potential of further fleshing them out is certainly there.

While Larian has an astonishingly great game on their hands, there is still a lot of work done to push it to the true masterpiece levels it is totally capable of achieving, and I am certain this is one of the places on which they could improve.